A group of law deans and professors warned senators that refusing to convene as an impeachment court for Vice President Sara Duterte is “not a constitutional option” and may amount to a criminal offense.
In a statement hours after the Senate powergrab on Monday, May 11, the legal scholars said the Senate must proceed with the trial once the House of Represenatives has decided to impeach Duterte.
The trial, they argued, should proceed “as a matter of course.”
A refusal by public officers to perform a duty imposed by law, “particularly by the Constitution,” may constitute dereliction of duty that is administratively actionable, they said.
They also warned that conferring “an undue advantage and benefit on a person not entitled to it” may be an indictable offense under Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson on Tuesday said the Senate should heed the statement not only because it came from some of the country’s foremost legal minds, but because proceeding with a possible impeachment trial is a constitutional mandate.
“Not only this a powerful statement coming from powerful legal minds of the country which the Senate should take seriously, but more importantly, it is what the Constitution unequivocally provides,” Lacson said in a statement.
Turn of events
The statement came after the House voted Monday, May 11, to impeach Duterte, sending the case to the Senate for trial. A landslide vote from 257 lawmakers backed the complaint, while 25 voted against and nine abstained.
Duterte faces allegations of misusing public funds, accumulating unexplained wealth and threatening President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, all of which she denies.
The law deans and professors said they were alarmed by what they called attempts by some senators to “forestall the impeachment trial,” including the change in Senate leadership on the eve of the transmittal of the articles of impeachment.
Shortly before the House vote, Senate President Vicente Sotto III, who had said the Senate should immediately take up the case once transmitted, was ousted and replaced by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano. Thirteen of the 24 senators who voted to remove Sotto, included close allies of Duterte and her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte.
Cayetano, a former running mate of Rodrigo Duterte, would preside over the impeachment trial.
Rejecting Escudero’s ‘forthwith’
The scholars also rejected what they called the “Escudero definition” of “forthwith,” which they described as meaning “when it pleased the Senate President.”
The Supreme Court, in an April 29 press briefer, clarified that “forthwith” in impeachment proceedings means within a reasonable time, depending on the circumstances, to allow the Senate to make the necessary preparations to convene as an impeachment court.
The court also said the Senate must avoid undue delay to uphold the principle that public officers are accountable to the people.
The law deans and professors argued that once at least one-third of House members either vote to affirm the committee report or file an impeachment complaint, the complaint constitutes the articles of impeachment and the trial proceeds “forthwith.”
“Refusing to sit as a Court of Impeachment is not a constitutional option,” they said.
Cayetano said Tuesday in an ambush interview that the Senate would convene the impeachment court “forthwith” for the articles of impeachment against Duterte
The statement was signed by legal scholars including retired Supreme Court Justice Adolfo Azcuna, San Beda Graduate School of Law professor Antonio La Viña, San Beda Graduate School of Law dean Fr. Ranhilio Aquino, Adamson University College of Law dean Anna Maria Abad, Lyceum of the Philippines University College of Law dean Ma. Soledad Margarita Deriquito-Mawis and De La Salle University Tañada-Diokno School of Law dean Virgilio de los Reyes.
The same statement also urged law enforcers to cooperate with international legal processes involving Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa under Republic Act 9851, should the state decide to do so.